The Gaming Den

Crissa wrote:As long as you are linking or including definitions of your TLA (the letter acronyms), it doesn't matter if you're using one over the other.

However, such is the folly of using acronyms without looking at what others may have used it for.

Hence, if you use 'DPR' on a website with people who are familiar with foul language, you probably shouldn't argue about it, but just define it in each post. That's what signatures are for, anyhow.

-Crissa

I think the idea is to annoy gays by throwing anti-gay shit in their faces when they try to find things relevant to their interests.

FrankTrollman wrote: You have to be fucking kidding me. You presented a bonus to the DC of a d20 roll as being fundamentally different - enough to justify the creation of an entirely different role from a penalty to the exact same d20 roll.

So in other words you failed to read my post correctly. Nice.

FrankTrollman wrote: That is totally ridiculous. That's stupid, and you should feel stupid. Because the core mechanic of the game is that you roll a d20, apply modifiers, and compare the result to the modified DC.

Actually you should feel stupid, because I've already acknowledged that a -X to hit penalty is the same as a +X AC bonus when it applies to one person or one enemy. My original response where I was calling the two cases different was where you called the leader "straight buff to one or more persons' AC" the same as "a mark against one single enemy". Try again.

But beyond that, Shielding Smite is a 1st level "Defender" power that grants bonuses to AC

Yeah, I already said in the case of a paladin, they have leader-like qualities. Again, you don't read words.

FrankTrollman wrote:the fact remains that your underlying claim that this difference constitutes a meaningful distinction between Leaders and Defenders is comical and unworthy of discussion.

Then it's a good thing I never actually made this claim. Direct or underlying. I guess you should re-read my posts on page 4. You've been categorically failing at debating this topic by constructing strawmans.

Roy, you've been failing even worse, because while you also don't realize what I was saying about AC bonuses versus marks, you're also an internet catchphraser who loves his constant positive feedback loop a little too much. The circlejerking I've seen here is pretty astounding. Lago and Boolean seem to be the only users here who don't bandwagon onto it, so kudos to them.

Roy wrote: Win.

Nice asinine contribution that doesn't make you look like a dumb internet catchphrasing [EDITED] at all.

Psychic Robot wrote:Holy fucking shit, you stupid assclown cock-for-brains dickwhore. DPS connotatively means damage over time. Yes, its denotation means DAMAGE PER SECOND PLEASE GARGLE MY BALLS, but, you worthless shitstain, in this particular instance, people are using it to refer to goddamn damage per round because it's less fuckwitted than DPR. You know why? Because everyone fucking knows what DPS is. You're going to have to explain to them what DPR means, and that's a waste of goddamn time, much like what I'm writing right now.

hahaha nice nerd rage. and I'm glad you think I'll have to explain "damage per round" to people when I mention it in the context of 4e damage analysis.

Edit: oops, forgot to sign

-NoobCrusher

Roy wrote:
Idiot.

Magical Tea Party, just like the game played by 5 year old girls doesn't have any rules, and doesn't have anything to do with anything. It's just making up random crap without any rhyme or reason. It accurately describes anything outside the rules of the game... like roleplaying.

Whoa, hold on. So you're arguing that you're being held back from roleplaying because there is a lack of rules for it? What the fuck kind of ass-backwards horseshit is that? Hahahahahahahaha. Man, this forum is full of irony.

Roy wrote:Just to annoy you...

-Roy

Here's some more of that irony I was talking about. I was making fun of Trollman by signing my posts. I guess you don't realize that you're helping me do this by signing yours as well.

This is too easy.

-NoobCrusher

Okay, there goes the thread... The Fence Builder will be along any time now...

to be fair, the thread went down the shitter a couple of pages ago, where the contentious DAMAGE PER ROUND VERSUS DPS debate went down

also circlejerking itt

-NoobCrusher

You are an asinine fool who makes arguments with logical holes a child could see. You construct strawmen and shift goal-posts with energy and passion whenever you might have to answer to something that would pin you to a position. You have recently degraded to simply making snarky complaints and acting like a dick instead of continuing a losing argument in good faith or conceding your points. You are petty and immature, you have reduced yourself into an internet clown. You aren't good at it; no one is laughing.

Akula wrote:You are an asinine fool who makes arguments with logical holes a child could see. You construct strawmen and shift goal-posts with energy and passion whenever you might have to answer to something that would pin you to a position. You have recently degraded to simply making snarky complaints and acting like a dick instead of continuing a losing argument in good faith or conceding your points. You are petty and immature, you have reduced yourself into an internet clown. You aren't good at it; no one is laughing.

The best part about this comment is that it applies entirely to people like Roy and Franktrollman, and you now, while it only partially applies to me (since I'm acting like as much of a dick as they are, which you seem to conveniently ignore, while several of my own arguments have been glossed over and ignored in lieu of petty things).

Also, who made this post? I need you to sign your post, please. Thank you.

-NoobCrusher

I prefer to distinguish myself from people who adopt a habit out of childish pique.
They actually tried to argue with you, they are insulting. They are still better then you as they argued in good faith and actually took a damn stand. Man up, deal with it. This is the internet, and I would much rather be able to speak my mind as I will than have others be mindful of my fragile feelings.

NoobCrusher wrote:

Roy wrote:
Idiot.

Magical Tea Party, just like the game played by 5 year old girls doesn't have any rules, and doesn't have anything to do with anything. It's just making up random crap without any rhyme or reason. It accurately describes anything outside the rules of the game... like roleplaying.

Whoa, hold on. So you're arguing that you're being held back from roleplaying because there is a lack of rules for it? What the fuck kind of ass-backwards horseshit is that? Hahahahahahahaha. Man, this forum is full of irony.

The point is that some measure of roleplaying should exist within the rules to create consistency among the player base. As 4e (supposedly) doesn't want to render characters mechanically useless and over-reward system mastery, so too should it seek to give equal voice to all the players at the table and not default to the most socially dominant among them. By creating terrible rules for non-combat interactions and encouraging Magical Tea Party wherever it can, the game is performing in a manner contrary to it's intent.

Imagine for a moment if combat were Tea Partied and everything else had consistent and accessible rules? You wouldn't want the DM arbitrarily deciding that you couldn't use your sword skill against this monster challenge, would you? Or that your group were simply going to dispense with those stupid Monster Challenge rules (because they were unworkable) and whichever player comes up with the best description slays the monster?

The 4e designers apparently decided that what the players wanted was a more complex version of Warhammer Quest with a few more talky NPCs than in the original version. Forgive us if some of us think they're douchebags for that.

violence in the media wrote: The point is that some measure of roleplaying should exist within the rules to create consistency among the player base. As 4e (supposedly) doesn't want to render characters mechanically useless and over-reward system mastery, so too should it seek to give equal voice to all the players at the table and not default to the most socially dominant among them. By creating terrible rules for non-combat interactions and encouraging Magical Tea Party wherever it can, the game is performing in a manner contrary to it's intent.

Yeah. It really does seem that WotC intended to make skill challenges nothing more than an interlude to combat. But here's the thing: by relegating the success of out-of-combat activities, mainly social ones, to the rolling of skills, you're already on some level discouraging creative roleplay. I'd much rather see somebody act out their attempt to impress a Lord instead of just saying, "I try to impress the Lord. *rolls die* Oh, I got a 28.", and then looking to the DM for the next description. Conversely, it absolutely sucks to act out a really good scene, have the DM say "Roll Diplomacy", and get a natural one. It is possible as a DM to judge the success of a character in their social interactions by how well they play it out. And it's not necessarily Tea Party in a bad way, either.

When it comes to roleplaying I'd rather have fewer specific rules regarding it than more, and trust that players will roleplay in good faith. If a low intelligence, low charisma character tries to be the party face because the player is capable of it, the DM should call them out on it because that's arguably bad roleplaying.

For out of combat tasks that aren't social, like climbing or lockpicking, it makes more sense that those should require specific rules, however, since that's not necessarily roleplaying.

violence in the media wrote: Imagine for a moment if combat were Tea Partied and everything else had consistent and accessible rules? You wouldn't want the DM arbitrarily deciding that you couldn't use your sword skill against this monster challenge, would you? Or that your group were simply going to dispense with those stupid Monster Challenge rules (because they were unworkable) and whichever player comes up with the best description slays the monster?

Certainly not. And I can see your point about consistency. But there are good ways to go about determining success in social situations without requiring a specific set of mechanics. A DM will have in mind an NPCs or villain's motives enough to the point where they should be able to determine what kinds of interactions will have certain impacts upon them, and to act upon those ideas without seeming arbitrary about it.

Look, if there aren't rules to determine things that have an outcome that's in flux, then what's the point of doing them?

See, that's my problem with this whole new 'just roleplay' it crap. It is actually important to know whether or not you can lead your party through a sandstorm or whether you just end up up lost. It is actually important whether to know that you imress the lord and you get his help or you get kicked out of the court and have to find some other way to unite the elf and dwarf factions.

Saying 'roleplay it' is the equivalent of either letting the DM railroad you or the players deciding whatever the hell they want. If the DM thinks that the elf king really hates goblins and won't listen to your bard but the player thinks that the super-charismatic goblin bard has magical items and special perfume and knowledge of elven etiquette up the wazoo, who the fuck should we go with? Both are valid outcomes and I have no idea why you're telling people that we should just 'roleplay' it, like that's going to solve any problems.

NC wrote:Yeah. It really does seem that WotC intended to make skill challenges nothing more than an interlude to combat. But here's the thing: by relegating the success of out-of-combat activities, mainly social ones, to the rolling of skills, you're already on some level discouraging creative roleplay. I'd much rather see somebody act out their attempt to impress a Lord instead of just saying, "I try to impress the Lord. *rolls die* Oh, I got a 28.", and then looking to the DM for the next description. Conversely, it absolutely sucks to act out a really good scene, have the DM say "Roll Diplomacy", and get a natural one.

So let me get this straight. If I, while playing in your game, punched you very hard and impressively on the nose, would you give me a bonus to hit and damage on my next attack roll?

No?

Well, in that case, stop preaching bullshit. Quite simply, what you are asking for is the social skill equivalent of what I just described. If it seems retarded there, it is equally retarded here.

Lago PARANOIA wrote: See, that's my problem with this whole new 'just roleplay' it crap. It is actually important to know whether or not you can lead your party through a sandstorm or whether you just end up up lost. It is actually important whether to know that you imress the lord and you get his help or you get kicked out of the court and have to find some other way to unite the elf and dwarf factions.

Well, I don't really have a prblem with doing out roleplayed dialogue. In many cases it's actually better than a diplomacy check because of one thing: PLayer choice. See in the diplomacy check scenario, the result is in flux, but it's not because of what you do or say. It's just in flux because of a die roll. And from a game standpoint, that's not all that interesting. As a player I want to be able to choose my own fate. I want to have the option of saying something smart or saying something stupid. Just making it a diplomacy check takes that option away from me, and just puts me at the mercy of the dice. And that doesn't really make for a better game in my opinion.

Yes, your results are more random, but they're not about player choice anymore, they're just the tyranny of the dice.

Saying 'roleplay it' is the equivalent of either letting the DM railroad you or the players deciding whatever the hell they want. If the DM thinks that the elf king really hates goblins and won't listen to your bard but the player thinks that the super-charismatic goblin bard has magical items and special perfume and knowledge of elven etiquette up the wazoo, who the fuck should we go with? Both are valid outcomes and I have no idea why you're telling people that we should just 'roleplay' it, like that's going to solve any problems.

I don't know... how do PCs decide what their characters do?

I mean if we let PCs pick if their elven bard wants to believe the shifty eyed merchant, then why not let the DM do the same?

Half the point of a roleplaying game is to be able to put yourself in the shoes of a king, or a brave warrior, or a cunning rogue. And yes, it's up to you to make decisions as if you were that character. I think the same should go for the DM as well.

And sure, the DM can be a dick and just say "No" to everyone, just like PCs can play their characters with tons of metagame knowledge and refuse to roleplay at all. But those are just bad PCs and bad DMs. Part of an RPG is getting in-character.

As a player I want to be able to choose my own fate. I want to have the option of saying something smart or saying something stupid. Just making it a diplomacy check takes that option away from me, and just puts me at the mercy of the dice. And that doesn't really make for a better game in my opinion.

So the alternative is to just let the DM decide how the conversation is going to go, with an additional penalty for players who for whatever reasn are not good at real-world speech?

I have no idea why someone who fears losing their choice would want the DM to decide how the thing is going to go. Unless by losing their choice they mean that the player decides how the negotiations are going to go and they just need to do a little off-game dance to make it work. I don't like either outcome.

I don't know... how do PCs decide what their characters do?

I mean if we let PCs pick if their elven bard wants to believe the shifty eyed merchant, then why not let the DM do the same?

Because what the DM wants and what the PC wants will differ.

RC, is combat less of a choice for you because you have to roll attack rolls? Seriously, the idiocy being flung around here is scary.

Again, you have a fast-talking, charming goblin bard trying to convince a really racist elven king to do something. Who gets their way in such a conversation?

Lago PARANOIA wrote: See, that's my problem with this whole new 'just roleplay' it crap. It is actually important to know whether or not you can lead your party through a sandstorm or whether you just end up up lost. It is actually important whether to know that you imress the lord and you get his help or you get kicked out of the court and have to find some other way to unite the elf and dwarf factions.

I'm not saying you should roleplay every single non-combat situation and have the DM determine outcomes purely on that alone. I'm saying you should be able to do both, and that overemphasis on the rules governing those things stifles creativity the more you do it.

Leading your party through a sandstorm is one thing. That's less roleplaying and trying to achieve a specific task based on your physical abilities and experience.

Do you not agree that it's less creative, though, to just roll a series of social interaction checks to determine whether or not you succeed in impressing the Lord or just getting kicked out than to actually do some acting? I know what you're saying: that having social skills on a character sheet should necessitate their use. And yes, I'm aware that you can both roll for skills and act things out. But what happens when the rolls don't sync up with the acting put forth by a player? If there's some last-stand moment with an outnumbered army that just received a rousing speech by a General (one of the PCs), but he rolls a natural 1, what do you do? You should at least strive for some kind of balance.

Saying that a game system is inherently not immersive because of a lack of specific mechanics governing roleplay is a bit backwards. It's up to the DM to make the story and environment immersive through narration. It's also on the shoulders of the players to interact with said environment so that the DM has more to work with.

Lago wrote: Because what the DM wants and what the PC wants will differ.

Not necessarily. Or at least, not necessarily to a large degree. I'd much rather play under a DM who is there to create a game that the players find fun and enjoyable. That's the whole point of playing tabletop games like D&D in the first place. If you subscribe to the whole "DM versus Players" mentality, then what's the point?

Obviously some degree of compromise must be reached to have an enjoyable game if the players want something the DM judges to be unreasonable, or the DM just wants to railroad the hell out of the players for no good reason.

Lago PARANOIA wrote: So the alternative is to just let the DM decide how the conversation is going to go, with an additional penalty for players who for whatever reasn are not good at real-world speech?

Sure. Why not. If you're not good at combat tactics and game rules, you're going to suffer in combat. I don't see a problem with having roleplaying be a skill in a roleplaying game.

I have no idea why someone who fears losing their choice would want the DM to decide how the thing is going to go. Unless by losing their choice they mean that the player decides how the negotiations are going to go and they just need to do a little off-game dance to make it work. I don't like either outcome.

Because I'm assuming the DM is going to roleplay reasonably and treat the encounter more like a puzzle or challenge, instead of just declaring an automatic win or loss. If I think of something good and convincing to say and maybe say it well, then I can win the encounter. Yes. I can win the encounter. not a lucky roll of the d20, but me.

Because what the DM wants and what the PC wants will differ.

This is true of everything. When the DM is playing a succubus trying to seduce my character, I don't want some rule saying my character has to automatically be seduced regardless of if it makes sense with the story or my character's personality.

But if you indeed believe in a social system, then you need die rolls for that too.

One sided social systems are bullshit, and are just a way of covering up bad imbalanced social mechanics. If charm person works on a PC, then why shouldn't diplomacy?

The only reason it doesn't is because deep down, we know that it's ass when you start telling someone else how to play their character and totally ignore all reason or personality in the game world because someone beat a static DC that doesn't take into account the personality of the character involved.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

Lago PARANOIA wrote: I don't know... how do PCs decide what their characters do?

I mean if we let PCs pick if their elven bard wants to believe the shifty eyed merchant, then why not let the DM do the same?

Half the point of a roleplaying game is to be able to put yourself in the shoes of a king, or a brave warrior, or a cunning rogue. And yes, it's up to you to make decisions as if you were that character. I think the same should go for the DM as well.

And sure, the DM can be a dick and just say "No" to everyone, just like PCs can play their characters with tons of metagame knowledge and refuse to roleplay at all. But those are just bad PCs and bad DMs. Part of an RPG is getting in-character.

Of course good Players and good DMs don't have to worry about these problems, we're talking about the rest of us here.

Everyone has bias, and DMs are not immune to this. Good social and environmental interaction rules should act as safeguards against this conscious and unconscious bias. Maybe the DM is unreasonably hard on Sally's computer character because he's a systems administrator in real life. Maybe the DM likes Bob more than Alex. Maybe the DM just doesn't realize that he tends to thwart Mike's actions more than anybody else. People probably won't even realize it's happening until Sally, Alex, or Mike get pissed off. If you're relying on Tea Party to fix all this, it won't.

Consistent rules will help in these situations. They won't magically do everything, but they do let the players show that they succeeded in their undertakings as far as the rules were concerned. This little thing can be enough to counteract any unconscious bias, and will make conscious bias more apparent.

Good DMs can do well under any circumstances, but Bad ones hide in ambiguity and inconsistency.

If there's some last-stand moment with an outnumbered army that just received a rousing speech by a General (one of the PCs), but he rolls a natural 1, what do you do? You should at least strive for some kind of balance.

The same thing that happens if a player is down on their last legs and is fighting the very ogre that killed his family... and the player rolls a critical fumble.

Or, hell, something like this could happen:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0421.html

Then after their supposed 'big heroic speech' moment comes and not only do they fail not to inspire the army, but people start DESERTING them. So after the hero's team loses the battle he realizes that if he just kept his mouth shut and didn't commit a faux pas by urging them to fight for an unpopular king, they would've won.

That's just as interesting of an outcome and you know what? That outcome HAS to be available in an RPG otherwise there's absolutely no drama in giving the speech.

I don't believe in a strong law of narrative causality for tabletop games. It completely breaks suspension of disbelief when it's done in books and it certainly wrecks any cooperative roleplaying experience.

Not necessarily. I'd much rather play under a DM who is there to create a game that the players find fun and enjoyable. That's the whole point of playing tabletop games like D&D in the first place. If you subscribe to the whole "DM versus Players" mentality, then what's the point?

Obviously some degree of compromise much be reached if the players want something unreasonable, or the DM just wants to railroad the hell out of them for no good reason.

Once again, you have a fast-talking, charismatic goblin bard and a really racist elven king. Who gets their way in such a situation?

It's not a DM versus player mentality, it's trying to avoid an argument. 'My goblin is really charming!' 'Guys, the king is REALLY racist. He tried to organize a genocide against 'greenskins' just three days ago after his son was killed. He hasn't even had time to throw a funeral.' 'I know, but Gobbo is wearing his special pants, has a charm from the lady of the lake, is playing a song the king likes...'

If you're going to let players get away with whatever plot twist they like just because they conduct a filibuster and took acting lessons then it's no different from a DM railroading things.

That's strange, I don't have to be good at swordplay or Go to be good at combat and strategy in D&D... Why should it be the same for the rest of the game?

-Crissa

Lago wrote: Once again, you have a fast-talking, charismatic goblin bard and a really racist elven king. Who gets their way in such a situation?

But why would you leave this to the chance of dice instead? Does it make any more sense to make success random? This actually IS a case where DM railroading, even if it's temporary might even be appropriate. Perhaps the players to perform a quest to prove themselves to the king enough to make him compromise. Perhaps the "quest" is open-ended enough so as not to railroad the party completely, either. But I'm getting a bit off the topic of deciding success in social encounters.

For what reason would an elven king who is extremely racist towards goblins listen to the pleas of a goblin? Is the goblin trying to ask for the support of his men in fighting another of the elven king's enemies? Does he hate enemy #2 enough to accept the help of enemy #1? You can actually think about this as a DM and even play it by ear depending on what the players do, and react accordingly instead of leaving it to dice. It can lead to a rich and rewarding roleplaying experience.

Lago wrote: If you're going to let players get away with whatever plot twist they like just because they conduct a filibuster and took acting lessons then it's no different from a DM railroading things.

You don't necessarily have to let the players get away with whatever they want. If the players come up with something plausible given the situation, why is it bad to reward them as such?

But why would you leave this to the chance of dice instead? Does it make any more sense to make success random? This actually IS a case where DM railroading, even if it's temporary might even be appropriate. Perhaps the players to perform a quest to prove themselves to the king enough to make him compromise. Perhaps the "quest" is open-ended enough so as not to railroad the party completely, either. But I'm getting a bit off the topic of deciding success in social encounters.

What? It's not railroading. The DM doesn't choose the outcome of the encounter ahead of time; there's a equal (or weighted) chance of negotiations failing or succeeding. What's railroading is forcing the DM to decide how the negotiations go.

Now, I'm not saying that the outcome has to be 50/50--it could be 5/95 or 70/30 or whatever. It's just that if there is any chance of the king kicking the goblin out or listening to his words or even imprisoning the goblin it needs to actually be a chance. Otherwise it's railroading, because the outcome has already been predetermined.

For what reason would an elven king who is extremely racist towards goblins listen to the pleas of a goblin? Is the goblin trying to ask for the support of his men in fighting another of the elven king's enemies? Does he hate enemy #2 enough to accept the help of enemy #1? You can actually think about this as a DM and even play it by ear depending on what the players do, and react accordingly instead of leaving it to dice. It can lead to a rich and rewarding roleplaying experience.

Or you could just add modifiers to the dice. Protip: adding or subtracting enough numbers from a d20 roll is the same thing as making it forgone. This is in fact what people do for things we don't care about.

You don't necessarily have to let the players get away with whatever they want. If the players come up with something plausible given the situation, why is it bad to reward them as such?

Because that's the same thing as giving players what they want, only they have to do a song and a dance first.

I mean, really, would you let players automatically sneak into the underground fortress just because they hummed the Metal Gear Solid theme and made a big deal about how they dressed in black and waited for the guard change?

NoobCrusher wrote: When it comes to roleplaying I'd rather have fewer specific rules regarding it than more, and trust that players will roleplay in good faith. If a low intelligence, low charisma character tries to be the party face because the player is capable of it, the DM should call them out on it because that's arguably bad roleplaying.

Complete tangent, but years ago I had a buddy who did that in Vampire LARPs. He would put the minimum points into Social attributes and then relied on his natural charisma to see him through. He was occasionally able to bully people into recanting social challenges made against him.

"Are you sure you want to do that?"

Lago PARANOIA wrote: Now, I'm not saying that the outcome has to be 50/50--it could be 5/95 or 70/30 or whatever. It's just that if there is any chance of the king kicking the goblin out or listening to his words or even imprisoning the goblin it needs to actually be a chance. Otherwise it's railroading, because the outcome has already been predetermined.

It can still be a chance but still be left up to roleplaying. The DM doesn't necessarily have to decide some magical phrase the players must say in order to convince. Maybe the DM has an idea of 2 or 3 things the players could say. Maybe the players come up with a 4th or 5th option that the DM hadn't considered but is still reasonable and makes sense for the King to go through with. And it's still more fun to act that all out instead of just rolling a die. If you do both things, there's a chance of asynchronous rolling/roleplaying.

Or you could just add modifiers to the dice. Protip: adding or subtracting enough numbers from a d20 roll is the same thing as making it forgone. This is in fact what people do for things we don't care about.

Sure, but you're still leaving it to a die roll. Natural 1s are always failures and there's still the risk of rolling extremely low in what is a difficult social encounter. So even if the character act something out that's great that you think, logically, the king would be agreeable to, even if grudgingly, you're leaving it to what amounts to random chance.

Because that's the same thing as giving players what they want, only they have to do a song and a dance first.

Again, that's not true if you do it right. Deciding before the encounter that you're going to have the King be amenable is giving the players what they want, or railroading. Playing it by ear in a logical way isn't. It's not even necessarily the illusion of choice in this case, either, because the players could say something stupid or inadvertently press one of the king's hot buttons enough for him to immediately thrust the guards upon them.

I mean, really, would you let players automatically sneak into the underground fortress just because they hummed the Metal Gear Solid theme and made a big deal about how they dressed in black and waited for the guard change?

No, why would you equate this with what I'm saying?